Liability of directors for corporate environmental transgressions – a South African case study

Daniel Le Roux and Christopher MacRoberts consider how recent prosecutions have shown the limits of directors and officers cover in environmental protection cases The risk environment for directors of companies that pollute is changing. In South Africa a raft of recent prosecutions of directors and officers for corporate environmental transgressions brings into focus the limits of directors and officers (D&O) cover for claims of this nature, and the importance of ensuring adequate cover is in place. At the heart of environmental legislation in South Africa is Section 24 of the constitution, which gives everyone the right to an environment that is not harmful to their health or wellbeing, and to have the environment protected for the benefit of present and future generations through reasonable legislative and other measures that: 1) Prevent pollution in ecological degradation; 2) Promote conservation; and 3) Secure ecologically sustainable development and the use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development. This section is given effect through the National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998 (NEMA), an umbrella act, and a suite of sector-specific environmental acts. These include acts related to air and water pollution, land waste, biodiversity and conservation of protected areas. The obligations and liability provisions in these acts are broad and far-reaching, particularly for directors of companies in pollution-intensive industries. NEMA places an overarching duty of care on every person who causes, has caused or may cause significant pollution or degradation of the environment to: “…take reasonable measures to prevent such pollution or degradation from occurring, continuing or recurring, or, insofar as such harm to the environment is authorised by law or cannot reasonably be avoided or stopped, to minimise and rectify such pollution or degradation of the environment.” The legislated penalties for non-compliance under NEMA and its related acts are severe. These include fines of up to ZAR10m, imprisonment for a period of between one and ten years, or both a fine and imprisonment. The reach of these acts means that directors (both past and present) who occupy positions of authority in companies at the time when offences are committed by those companies may be guilty of offences, and liable upon conviction for monetary penalties, in addition to potentially having to compensate organs of state or affected third parties by way of damages for carrying out remediation, as well as the costs of the prosecution. In a recent claim, local and foreign directors and officers of a multinational industrial producer were indicted for serious air and land pollution offences by their company. Their company operated in a competitive industry with tight margins and, for a number of years, fell behind in its compliance with progressively more onerous (or onerously more progressive?) emissions and land remediation standards. The local subsidiary of the company did not remedy these failings despite repeated compliance ultimatums by the environmental inspection authority, with the result that the directors and officers were charged with environmental offences after the local entity entered receivership. It appears likely that the indicted directors and officers may receive substantial fines together with suspended sentences. Claims were brought against the D&O policies of the local entity and its international parent. In the case of the local policy, the usual Side A & B cover was extended to include an extension for environmental impairment defence costs. This extension operates to permit the advancement of defence costs for a claim for environmental impairment (which is generally excluded from D&O cover in terms of very wide pollution exclusion clauses). The growing risk of environmental liability for directors and officers has led underwriters to offer a range of bolt-on extensions of this nature to their standard liability wordings. These extensions generally do not extend to cover liability for fines, penalties or damages consequent on an environmental transgression but, importantly, provide cover to affected directors and officers for the costs of defence subject to the usual D&O policy terms and exclusions. In a similar prosecution, the CEO of a waste management company was criminally charged, together with the company, for serious breaches of air quality legislation at a landfill site near Durban. He faces a maximum fine of ZAR10m. These cases demonstrate that the authorities responsible for enforcing environmental compliance do not hesitate to use the personal liability provisions of legislation to indict directors and officers in positions of responsibility. The South African example is a reminder of the importance of ensuring that your D&O cover is bespoke to your risk environment. Directors and officers in pollution-intensive businesses would be well advised to make certain that their cover includes the necessary extensions to mitigate this risk. Contributed by Daniel Le Roux, a partner, and Christopher MacRoberts, senior associate, at Clyde & Co, Johannesburg

Liability of directors for corporate environmental transgressions – a South African case study

Want to read this article?

Read Next

Ardonagh to acquire PSC Insurance in Australia

Munich Re Q1 net result up 68%, buoyed by ERGO international growth and April renewals

New cyber insurance endorsement from AXA XL in US

Intangible asset value higher than tangible but protection gap persists

New terrorism facility launched by Evolin Broking, backed by Chaucer

Ardonagh to acquire PSC Insurance in Australia

Munich Re Q1 net result up 68%, buoyed by ERGO international growth and April renewals

New cyber insurance endorsement from AXA XL in US

Intangible asset value higher than tangible but protection gap persists

New terrorism facility launched by Evolin Broking, backed by Chaucer

Want to read this article?

Read Next

Ardonagh to acquire PSC Insurance in Australia

Munich Re Q1 net result up 68%, buoyed by ERGO international growth and April renewals

New cyber insurance endorsement from AXA XL in US

Intangible asset value higher than tangible but protection gap persists

New terrorism facility launched by Evolin Broking, backed by Chaucer

Related Articles